國立虎尾科技大學 |

The controversy over marine protected areas = science meets policy /

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The controversy over marine protected areas/ by Alex Caveen ... [et al.].
其他題名:	science meets policy /
其他作者:	Caveen, Alex.
出版者:	Cham :Springer International Publishing : : 2015.,
面頁冊數:	xix, 162 p. :ill. (some col.), digital ; : 24 cm.;
Contained By:	Springer eBooks
標題:	Marine parks and reserves. -
電子資源:	http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10957-2
ISBN:	9783319109572 (electronic bk.)

The controversy over marine protected areas = science meets policy /
The controversy over marine protected areasscience meets policy /[electronic resource] :by Alex Caveen ... [et al.]. - Cham :Springer International Publishing :2015. - xix, 162 p. :ill. (some col.), digital ;24 cm. - SpringerBriefs in environmental science,2191-5547. - SpringerBriefs in environmental science..

Chapter One: Introduction -- Chapter Two: The Rise and Rise of the Marine Reserves Bandwagon -- Chapter Three: Bibliometric Test of the MR Bandwagon -- Chapter Four: Bias in the Peer-Reviewed Literature, and Crossing the Science/Policy Divide -- Chapter Five: Critique of the Scientific Evidence for Fisheries Benefits of MRs -- Chapter Six: Case study of the English Patient -- Chapter Seven: Conclusion.

This book is a critical analysis of the concept of marine protected areas (MPAs) particularly as a tool for marine resource management. It explains the reasons for the extraordinary rise of MPAs to the top of the political agenda for marine policy, and evaluates the scientific credentials for the unprecedented popularity of this management option. The book reveals the role played by two policy networks epistemic community and advocacy coalition in promoting the notion of MPA, showing how advocacy for marine reserves by some scientists based on limited evidence of fisheries benefits has led to a blurring of the boundary between science and politics. Second, the study investigates whether the scientific consensus on MPAs has resulted in a publication bias, whereby pro-MPA articles are given preferential treatment by peer-reviewed academic journals, though it found only limited evidence of such a bias. Third, the project conducts a systematic review of the literature to determine the ecological effects of MPAs, and reaches the conclusion that there is little proof of a positive impact on finfish populations in temperate waters. Fourth, the study uses discourse analysis to trace the effects of a public campaigning policy network on marine conservation zones (MCZs) in England, which demonstrated that there was considerable confusion over the objectives that MCZs were being designated to achieve. The book's conclusion is that the MPA issue shows the power of ideas in marine governance, but offers a caution that scientists who cross the line between science and politics risk exaggerating the benefits of MPAs by glossing over uncertainties in the data, which may antagonise the fishing industry, delay resolution of the MPA issue, and weaken public faith in marine science if and when the benefits of MCZs are subsequently seen to be limited.

ISBN: 9783319109572 (electronic bk.)

Standard No.: 10.1007/978-3-319-10957-2doiSubjects--Topical Terms:

1063218
Marine parks and reserves.

LC Class. No.: QH91.75.A1

Dewey Class. No.: 333.7

The controversy over marine protected areas = science meets policy /
LDR:03312nam a2200325 a 4500 001 834606
003 DE-He213
005 20150611144918.0
006 m d
007 cr nn 008maaau
008 160421s2015 gw s 0 eng d
020 $a 9783319109572 (electronic bk.)
020 $a 9783319109565 (paper)
024 7 $a 10.1007/978-3-319-10957-2 $2 doi
035 $a 978-3-319-10957-2
040 $a GP $c GP
041 0 $a eng
050 4 $a QH91.75.A1
072 7 $a RNF $2 bicssc
072 7 $a TEC010000 $2 bisacsh
082 0 4 $a 333.7 $2 23
090 $a QH91.75.A1 $b C764 2015
245 0 4 $a The controversy over marine protected areas $h [electronic resource] : $b science meets policy / $c by Alex Caveen ... [et al.].
260 $a Cham : $c 2015. $b Springer International Publishing : $b Imprint: Springer,
300 $a xix, 162 p. : $b ill. (some col.), digital ; $c 24 cm.
490 1 $a SpringerBriefs in environmental science, $x 2191-5547
505 0 $a Chapter One: Introduction -- Chapter Two: The Rise and Rise of the Marine Reserves Bandwagon -- Chapter Three: Bibliometric Test of the MR Bandwagon -- Chapter Four: Bias in the Peer-Reviewed Literature, and Crossing the Science/Policy Divide -- Chapter Five: Critique of the Scientific Evidence for Fisheries Benefits of MRs -- Chapter Six: Case study of the English Patient -- Chapter Seven: Conclusion.
520 $a This book is a critical analysis of the concept of marine protected areas (MPAs) particularly as a tool for marine resource management. It explains the reasons for the extraordinary rise of MPAs to the top of the political agenda for marine policy, and evaluates the scientific credentials for the unprecedented popularity of this management option. The book reveals the role played by two policy networks epistemic community and advocacy coalition in promoting the notion of MPA, showing how advocacy for marine reserves by some scientists based on limited evidence of fisheries benefits has led to a blurring of the boundary between science and politics. Second, the study investigates whether the scientific consensus on MPAs has resulted in a publication bias, whereby pro-MPA articles are given preferential treatment by peer-reviewed academic journals, though it found only limited evidence of such a bias. Third, the project conducts a systematic review of the literature to determine the ecological effects of MPAs, and reaches the conclusion that there is little proof of a positive impact on finfish populations in temperate waters. Fourth, the study uses discourse analysis to trace the effects of a public campaigning policy network on marine conservation zones (MCZs) in England, which demonstrated that there was considerable confusion over the objectives that MCZs were being designated to achieve. The book's conclusion is that the MPA issue shows the power of ideas in marine governance, but offers a caution that scientists who cross the line between science and politics risk exaggerating the benefits of MPAs by glossing over uncertainties in the data, which may antagonise the fishing industry, delay resolution of the MPA issue, and weaken public faith in marine science if and when the benefits of MCZs are subsequently seen to be limited.
650 0 $a Marine parks and reserves. $3 1063218
650 0 $a Marine parks and reserves $x Law and legislation. $3 1063219
650 1 4 $a Environment. $3 579342
650 2 4 $a Environmental Management. $3 593900
650 2 4 $a Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice. $3 677313
650 2 4 $a Freshwater & Marine Ecology. $3 676940
650 2 4 $a Nature Conservation. $3 593901
700 1 $a Caveen, Alex. $3 1063217
710 2 $a SpringerLink (Online service) $3 593884
773 0 $t Springer eBooks
830 0 $a SpringerBriefs in environmental science. $3 888001
856 4 0 $u http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10957-2
950 $a Earth and Environmental Science (Springer-11646)